Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators.

Introduction: Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates. Methods: The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine. Results: The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005). Conclusions: Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

A framework for setting enrollment goals to ensure participant diversity in sponsored clinical trials in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in clinical trials (CTs) has the potential to improve health equity and close health disparities. Underrepresentation of historically underserved groups compromises the generalizability of trial findings to the target population, hinders innovation, and contributes to low accrual. The aim of this study was to establish a transparent and reproducible process for setting trial diversity enrollment goals informed by the disease epidemiology. METHOD: An advisory board of epidemiologists with expertise in health disparities, equity, diversity, and social determinants of health was convened to evaluate and strengthen the initial goal-setting framework. Data sources used were the epidemiologic literature, US Census, and real-world data (RWD); limitations were considered and addressed where appropriate. A framework was designed to safeguard against the underrepresentation of historically medically underserved groups. A stepwise approach was created with Y/N decisions based on empirical data. RESULTS: We compared race and ethnicity distributions in the RWD of six diseases from Pfizer's portfolio chosen to represent different therapeutic areas (multiple myeloma, fungal infections, Crohn's disease, Gaucher disease, COVID-19, and Lyme disease) to the distributions in the US Census and established trial enrollment goals. Enrollment goals for potential CTs were based on RWD for multiple myeloma, Gaucher disease, and COVID-19; enrollment goals were based on the Census for fungal infections, Crohn's disease, and Lyme disease. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a transparent and reproducible framework for setting CT diversity enrollment goals. We note how limitations due to data sources can be mitigated and consider several ethical decisions in setting equitable enrollment goals.

A Path Forward: COVID-19 Vaccine Equity Community Education and Outreach Initiative.

COVID-19 vaccines offer hope to end the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we document key lessons learned as we continue to confront COVID-19 variants and work to adapt our vaccine outreach strategies to best serve our community. In the fall of 2020, the Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity at Johns Hopkins Medicine, in collaboration with the Office of Government and Community Affairs for Johns Hopkins University and Medicine, established the COVID-19 Vaccine Equity Community Education and Outreach Initiative in partnership with faith and community leaders, local and state government representatives, and community-based organizations. Working with community and government partnerships established before COVID-19 enabled our team to quickly build infrastructure focused on COVID-19 vaccine education and equity. These partnerships resulted in the development and implementation of web-based educational content, major culturally adapted media campaigns (reaching more than 200,000 individuals), community and faith education outreach, youth-focused initiatives, and equity-focused mobile vaccine clinics. The community mobile vaccine clinics vaccinated over 3,000 people in the first 3 months. Of these, 90% identified as persons of color who have been disproportionately impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic-government-community partnerships are vital to ensure health equity. Community partnerships, education events, and open dialogues were conducted between the community and medical faculty. Using nontraditional multicultural media venues enabled us to reach many community members and facilitated informed decisionmaking. Additionally, an equitable COVID-19 vaccine policy requires attention to vaccine access as well as access to sound educational information. Our initiative has been thoughtful about using various types of vaccination sites, mobile vaccine units, and flexible hours of operation.

Puerto Rican healthcare workers' perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on their role, patient care, and mental health.

PURPOSE: To explore the personal and work-related stressors of healthcare workers in Puerto Rico and the organizational support they received during the pandemic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design and from April - November, 2021, conducted semi-structured individual interviews with Puerto Rican frontline healthcare workers (n = 12) and supervisors (n = 5). FINDINGS: Thematic analysis revealed five major themes: (a) Organizations' response to COVID-19; (b) increased complexity of patients; (c) intensified work and psychological demand for nurses; (d) overwhelmed and overworked; and (e) recommendations for healthcare leadership. Participants explained that their organizations' responses to COVID-19 were insufficient for  meeting the demands and acuity of the patients. Closure of outpatient services contributed to people presenting to hospitals with exacerbated chronic conditions - especially the elderly. With COVID-19 precautions prohibiting family visitation, nurses became responsible for total care, including emotional support of patients. In addition, the shortage of staff contributed to nurses assuming greater workloads, feeling overwhelmed and overworked, and healthcare worker resignations. Given their experiences, healthcare workers recommended that healthcare leadership show more appreciation for staff, demonstrate empathy, include frontline workers in decision-making, and provide mental health resources for staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study with Puerto Rican frontline workers and supervisors uncovers the multiple stressors experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings underscore the need for prioritizing the well-being of healthcare workers, preparing healthcare leadership on how to support staff, and mandating nurse-to-patient ratios. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Healthcare workers explained the barriers they experienced for providing quality care to their patients. They also presented recommendations for healthcare leadership to facilitate supporting frontline workers, which ultimately contributes to optimal patient care.

"Living like an empty gas tank with a leak": Mixed methods study on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The burden and presentation of post-acute sequela of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) are a developing major public health concern. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the burden of PASC in community-dwelling individuals and understand the experiences of people living with PASC. METHODS: This mixed-methods study of COVID-19 positive community-dwelling persons involved surveys and in-depth interviews. Main outcome was self-report of possible PASC symptoms 3 weeks or longer after positive COVID-19 test. In-depth interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions and probes based on emerging literature on PASC and the impact of COVID-19. RESULTS: With a survey response rate of 70%, 442 participants were included in this analysis, mean (SD) age 45.4 (16.2) years, 71% female, 12% Black/African American. Compared to those with no PASC symptoms, persons who reported PASC symptoms were more likely to be older (mean age: 46.5 vs. 42; p = 0.013), female (74.3% vs. 61.2%; p = 0.010), to have pre-existing conditions (49.6% vs. 34%; p = 0.005), and to have been hospitalized for COVID-19 (14.2% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.002). About 30% of the participants experienced severe fatigue; the proportion of persons reporting severe fatigue was 7-fold greater in those with PASC symptoms (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio [aPR] 6.73, 95%CI: 2.80-16.18). Persons with PASC symptoms were more likely to report poor quality of life (16% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and worse mental health functioning (Mean difference: -1.87 95%CI: -2.38, -1.37, p<0.001). Themes from in-depth interviews revealed PASC was experienced as debilitating. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the prevalence of PASC among community-dwelling adults was substantial. Participants reported considerable coping difficulties, restrictions in everyday activities, invisibility of symptoms and experiences, and impediments to getting and receiving PASC care.

Factors Facilitating Academic-Community Research Partnerships With African American Churches: Recruitment Process for a Community-Based, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

African American (AA) churches are valuable partners in implementing health promotion programming (HPP) to combat health disparities. The study purpose was to evaluate AA church characteristics associated with enrollment into the FAITH! (Fostering African American Improvement in Total Health) Trial, a community-based, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mobile health intervention for cardiovascular health promotion among AA churches. Churches located in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Rochester, Minnesota were invited to complete an electronic screening survey and follow-up telephone interview including the PREACH (Predicting Readiness to Engage African American Churches in Health) tool to assess church characteristics and infrastructure for HPP. The primary outcome was church enrollment in the FAITH! Trial. Key predictors included overall PREACH scores and its subscales (Personnel, Physical Structure, Faith-based Approach, Funding), congregation size, and mean congregation member age. Of the 26 churches screened, 16 (61.5%) enrolled in the trial. The enrolled churches had higher overall mean PREACH scores (36.1 vs. 30.2) and subscales for Personnel (8.8 vs. 5.6), Faith-based Approach (11.0 vs. 9.6), and Funding (7.3 vs. 4.8) compared with non-enrolled churches; all differences were not statistically significant due to small sample size. Twelve (75.0%) of the enrolled churches had >75 members versus six (60.0%) of the non-enrolled churches. Twelve (80.0%) of the enrolled churches had an average congregation member age ≤54 years versus six (67.0%) of the non-enrolled churches. AA churches enrolling into a community-based RCT reported greater infrastructure for HPP, larger congregations, and members of younger age. These characteristics may be helpful to consider among researchers partnering with AA churches for HPP studies.

Frontline healthcare workers experiences and challenges with in-person and remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic created new and exacerbated existing stressors for frontline healthcare workers. Despite being disproportionately affected by COVID-19, little is known about the experiences of frontline healthcare workers serving marginalized populations in community settings. Design We used qualitative descriptive methods to understand the experiences of 12 frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) supporting primarily underserved populations in outpatient settings during COVID-19. Interviews were conducted from March to April 2021. Methods Interviews were held virtually via Zoom using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and uploaded into NVivo 12 qualitative data analysis software. The transcripts were dually coded by members of the research team and a thematic analysis was conducted. Results Four major themes from the interviews were identified: stressors and burnout, coping strategies, organizational support, and recommendations. HCWs described how the early adjustment period to the pandemic created new challenges as they attempted to navigate changes in the workplace and altered responsibilities at home. HCWs felt largely unsupported by their organizations as they attempted to cope with stressors. Organizational support programs and resources often did not meet frontline workers' needs, and sentiments of unappreciation from leadership contributed to feelings of burnout and frustration as pandemic-related challenges persisted and evolved. Conclusion Despite encountering numerous stressors at work and home, resulting from pandemic-related disruptions, frontline HCWs continued to provide care for their clients while navigating emerging challenges. Health organizations should include HCWs in decision-making processes when implementing support systems for workers during times of crisis.

Is It Time to Restructure the National Institutes of Health?

[...]NIH practices that propagate epistemic exclusion will likely permeate elsewhere. [...]NIH needs to lead on reducing epistemic exclusion related to race, discipline, and beyond. [...]implement and test new options to determine the impact on epistemic exclusion, improved health outcomes, and unintended consequences. [...]the NIH receives bipartisan support, which could be jeopardized if restructured. [...]the NIH already includes mechanisms of restructuring, as evidenced by (1) the formation of the NIMHD,14'15 which provides pathways for historically marginalized groups and methods to be incorporated within the NIH;(2) the UNITE initiative to end structural racism13;(3) study section composition changes that sought to expand disciplinary representation: and ( 4) 1!IH embracing open science pm/Tices, including citizen science.

Protecting the vulnerable during COVID-19: Treating and preventing chronic disease disparities.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exacerbated health disparities across ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) - such as hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive lung diseases - are key drivers of this widening gap, because they disproportionately afflict vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations with non-communicable diseases, in turn, are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 itself - but also at increased risk of poor outcomes from those underlying conditions. Proven strategies for NCD control must be adapted to help vulnerable patients react to these dual threats. We detail six key policy interventions - task shifting, workforce protection, telehealth and mobile services, insurance restructuring and increased funding for NCDs, prescription policies for NCDs and community partnerships - to bridge this care gap. Long-term integration of these care models post-COVID-19 may prevent care shocks during future pandemics, bolstering emerging universal primary care models.

Healthcare Leadership Perspectives on Supporting Frontline Workers in Health Center Settings during the Pandemic.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic much attention has been given to addressing the needs of hospital-based healthcare professionals delivering critical inpatient care. At the same time, other groups of essential frontline healthcare workers have continued to serve low-income and underserved populations whose healthcare and nonmedical needs did not cease, and in many cases were exacerbated by factors associated with the pandemic shutdown. As these same factors also potentially impacted well-being and effectiveness of frontline healthcare workers, we sought to understand the organizational-level responses to the pandemic, including the support and preparation for frontline workers. As part of a larger study focused on reducing health disparities in hypertension, we conducted semi-structured individual interviews with 14 leaders from healthcare and health services organizations to explore how these organizations responded to accommodate frontline workers' needs. Findings from our sample show that healthcare and health service organizations made a range of major and timely modifications to clinic operations intended to address the needs of both employees and patients and strove to ensure continued patient services as much as possible. Nevertheless, our findings underscore the need for more attention and resources to support healthcare workers in primary care settings especially during emergencies such as COVID-19.

Community-based, cluster-randomized pilot trial of a cardiovascular mHealth intervention: Rationale, design, and baseline findings of the FAITH! Trial.

BACKGROUND: Compared to whites, African-Americans have lower prevalence of ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) based on the American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 (LS7). These CVH inequities have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideal LS7 health-promoting behaviors and biological risk factors (eg, diet, blood pressure) are associated with improved CVH outcomes. The FAITH! (Fostering African-American Improvement in Total Health) App, a community-informed, mobile health (mHealth) intervention, previously demonstrated significant improvements in LS7 components among African-Americans, suggesting that mHealth interventions may be effective in improving CVH. This paper presents the FAITH! Trial design, baseline findings, and pandemic-related lessons learned. METHODS: Utilizing a community-based participatory research approach, this study assessed the feasibility/preliminary efficacy of a refined FAITH! App for promoting LS7 among African-Americans in faith communities using a cluster, randomized controlled trial. Participants received the FAITH! App (immediate intervention) or were assigned to a delayed intervention comparator group. Baseline data were collected via electronic surveys and health assessments. Primary outcomes are change in LS7 score from baseline to 6-months post-intervention and app engagement/usability. RESULTS: Of 85 enrolled individuals, 76 completed baseline surveys/health assessments, for a participation rate of 89% (N = 34 randomized to the immediate intervention, N = 42 to delayed intervention). At baseline, participants were predominantly female (54/76, 71%), employed (56/76, 78%) and of high cardiometabolic risk (72/76, 95% with hypertension and/or overweight/obesity) with mean LS7 scores in the poor range (6.8, SD = 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: The FAITH! Trial recruitment was feasible, and its results may inform the use of mHealth tools to increase ideal CVH among African-Americans.

A Process for Developing a Telehealth Equity Dashboard at a Large Academic Health System Serving Diverse Populations

Johns Hopkins Medicine (JHM) rapidly implemented telehealth system-wide as part of its COVID-19 pandemic response. In a four-month period (January–May, 2020), video visits across the system increased more than 1,000-fold (from approximately 80 to 80,000 per month). For vulnerable populations, telehealth may reduce or exacerbate disparities in access to and quality of care. To enhance equity in telehealth access, we must assess, in the moment, how system-wide digital health strategies affect vulnerable populations. In this commentary, we describe how we are developing a telehealth equity dashboard and our plans to apply the data for system-wide improvement in telehealth access. We describe key elements of this process including the composition of the team involved in dashboard creation, how a telehealth impact assessment tool can be used to determine which measures to track, and how dashboard data will inform action across the system to advance equity in telehealth.